In re A.Z.
2011 Ohio 6739
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Willis gave birth to A.Z. on Aug. 15, 2008; Eadses sought reasonable companionship time.
- A.Z. resides in Meigs County; Willis and Walid Zahran are her parents, unmarried at birth.
- Eadses filed Sept. 17, 2010 for companionship rights under R.C. 3109.12(A).
- Willis and Zahran married Sept. 20, 2010; they moved to dismiss the Eadses’ complaint.
- Juvenile court dismissed the complaint as applied-unconstitutional under equal protection; Eadses appealed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding arguments based on Moore and statutory interpretation irrelevant to equal-protection analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 3109.12 as applied violates equal protection. | Eadses rely on Moore and statute interpretation. | Willis/Zahran contend no as-applied equal protection issue. | No merit; appeal affirmed; as applied equal protection rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rayburn, 2010-Ohio-5693 (Ohio App. 2010) (equal-protection analysis under state constitution)
- Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-1970 (Ohio 2009) (equal protection standards adopted)
- Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin, 117 Ohio St.3d 122 (2008-Ohio-511) (equal protection considerations in statutory classifications)
- McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (2005-Ohio-6505) (strict scrutiny-like scrutiny for classifications)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires plausible, rational distinctions)
- United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) (as-applied challenges to statutes)